Cost-Effective Sampling and Analysis for Mycotoxins in a Cereal Batch

M. Focker, H.J. van der Fels-Klerx, A.G.J.M. Oude Lansink

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

The presence of hazards (e.g., contaminants, pathogens) in food/feed, water, plants, or animals can lead to major economic losses related to human and animal health or the rejection of batches of food or feed. Monitoring these hazards is important but can lead to high costs. This study aimed to find the most cost-effective sampling and analysis (S&A) plan in the cases of the mycotoxins deoxynivalenol (DON) in a wheat batch and aflatoxins (AFB1) in a maize batch. An optimization model was constructed, maximizing the number of correct decisions for accepting/rejecting a batch of cereals, with a budget as major constraint. The decision variables were the choice of the analytical method: instrumental method (e.g., liquid chromatography combined with mass-spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)), enzyme-linked-immuno-assay (ELISA), or lateral flow devices (LFD), the number of incremental samples collected from the batch, and the number of aliquots analyzed. S&A plans using ELISA showed to be slightly more cost effective than S&A plans using the other two analytical methods. However, for DON in wheat, the difference between the optimal S&A plans using the three different analytical methods was minimal. For AFB1 in maize, the cost effectiveness of the S&A plan using instrumental methods or ELISA were comparable whereas the S&A plan considering onsite detection with LFDs was least cost effective. In case of nonofficial controls, which do not have to follow official regulations for sampling and analysis, onsite detection with ELISA for both AFB1 in maize and DON in wheat, or with LFDs for DON in wheat, could provide cost-effective alternatives.

LanguageEnglish
Pages926-939
Number of pages14
JournalRisk Analysis
Volume39
Issue number4
Early online date2 Oct 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2019

Fingerprint

Mycotoxins
Triticum
Sampling
Assays
Costs and Cost Analysis
Enzymes
Zea mays
Costs
Hazards
Animals
Aflatoxins
Food
Liquid chromatography
Pathogens
Budgets
Cost effectiveness
Liquid Chromatography
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Mass spectrometry
Mass Spectrometry

Keywords

  • Modeling
  • mycotoxins
  • sampling

Cite this

@article{c318cf26c6b64a1abb50e9ef2048d6c0,
title = "Cost-Effective Sampling and Analysis for Mycotoxins in a Cereal Batch",
abstract = "The presence of hazards (e.g., contaminants, pathogens) in food/feed, water, plants, or animals can lead to major economic losses related to human and animal health or the rejection of batches of food or feed. Monitoring these hazards is important but can lead to high costs. This study aimed to find the most cost-effective sampling and analysis (S&A) plan in the cases of the mycotoxins deoxynivalenol (DON) in a wheat batch and aflatoxins (AFB1) in a maize batch. An optimization model was constructed, maximizing the number of correct decisions for accepting/rejecting a batch of cereals, with a budget as major constraint. The decision variables were the choice of the analytical method: instrumental method (e.g., liquid chromatography combined with mass-spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)), enzyme-linked-immuno-assay (ELISA), or lateral flow devices (LFD), the number of incremental samples collected from the batch, and the number of aliquots analyzed. S&A plans using ELISA showed to be slightly more cost effective than S&A plans using the other two analytical methods. However, for DON in wheat, the difference between the optimal S&A plans using the three different analytical methods was minimal. For AFB1 in maize, the cost effectiveness of the S&A plan using instrumental methods or ELISA were comparable whereas the S&A plan considering onsite detection with LFDs was least cost effective. In case of nonofficial controls, which do not have to follow official regulations for sampling and analysis, onsite detection with ELISA for both AFB1 in maize and DON in wheat, or with LFDs for DON in wheat, could provide cost-effective alternatives.",
keywords = "Modeling, mycotoxins, sampling",
author = "M. Focker and {van der Fels-Klerx}, H.J. and {Oude Lansink}, A.G.J.M.",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1111/risa.13201",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "926--939",
journal = "Risk Analysis",
issn = "0272-4332",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "4",

}

Cost-Effective Sampling and Analysis for Mycotoxins in a Cereal Batch. / Focker, M.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M.

In: Risk Analysis, Vol. 39, No. 4, 04.2019, p. 926-939.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-Effective Sampling and Analysis for Mycotoxins in a Cereal Batch

AU - Focker, M.

AU - van der Fels-Klerx, H.J.

AU - Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M.

PY - 2019/4

Y1 - 2019/4

N2 - The presence of hazards (e.g., contaminants, pathogens) in food/feed, water, plants, or animals can lead to major economic losses related to human and animal health or the rejection of batches of food or feed. Monitoring these hazards is important but can lead to high costs. This study aimed to find the most cost-effective sampling and analysis (S&A) plan in the cases of the mycotoxins deoxynivalenol (DON) in a wheat batch and aflatoxins (AFB1) in a maize batch. An optimization model was constructed, maximizing the number of correct decisions for accepting/rejecting a batch of cereals, with a budget as major constraint. The decision variables were the choice of the analytical method: instrumental method (e.g., liquid chromatography combined with mass-spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)), enzyme-linked-immuno-assay (ELISA), or lateral flow devices (LFD), the number of incremental samples collected from the batch, and the number of aliquots analyzed. S&A plans using ELISA showed to be slightly more cost effective than S&A plans using the other two analytical methods. However, for DON in wheat, the difference between the optimal S&A plans using the three different analytical methods was minimal. For AFB1 in maize, the cost effectiveness of the S&A plan using instrumental methods or ELISA were comparable whereas the S&A plan considering onsite detection with LFDs was least cost effective. In case of nonofficial controls, which do not have to follow official regulations for sampling and analysis, onsite detection with ELISA for both AFB1 in maize and DON in wheat, or with LFDs for DON in wheat, could provide cost-effective alternatives.

AB - The presence of hazards (e.g., contaminants, pathogens) in food/feed, water, plants, or animals can lead to major economic losses related to human and animal health or the rejection of batches of food or feed. Monitoring these hazards is important but can lead to high costs. This study aimed to find the most cost-effective sampling and analysis (S&A) plan in the cases of the mycotoxins deoxynivalenol (DON) in a wheat batch and aflatoxins (AFB1) in a maize batch. An optimization model was constructed, maximizing the number of correct decisions for accepting/rejecting a batch of cereals, with a budget as major constraint. The decision variables were the choice of the analytical method: instrumental method (e.g., liquid chromatography combined with mass-spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)), enzyme-linked-immuno-assay (ELISA), or lateral flow devices (LFD), the number of incremental samples collected from the batch, and the number of aliquots analyzed. S&A plans using ELISA showed to be slightly more cost effective than S&A plans using the other two analytical methods. However, for DON in wheat, the difference between the optimal S&A plans using the three different analytical methods was minimal. For AFB1 in maize, the cost effectiveness of the S&A plan using instrumental methods or ELISA were comparable whereas the S&A plan considering onsite detection with LFDs was least cost effective. In case of nonofficial controls, which do not have to follow official regulations for sampling and analysis, onsite detection with ELISA for both AFB1 in maize and DON in wheat, or with LFDs for DON in wheat, could provide cost-effective alternatives.

KW - Modeling

KW - mycotoxins

KW - sampling

U2 - 10.1111/risa.13201

DO - 10.1111/risa.13201

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 926

EP - 939

JO - Risk Analysis

T2 - Risk Analysis

JF - Risk Analysis

SN - 0272-4332

IS - 4

ER -